Court strikes out PDP case seeking to disqualify Tinubu and Obi for swapping running mates

PLANS by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to nullify the candidacy of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu and Peter Obi for substituting their running mates have failed an after an Abuja high court struck out a suit asking that the two candidates be barred.

In July, the PDP filed a lawsuit against Asiwaju Tinubu of the APC and Governor Obi of the Labour Party for changing their presidential running mates after the official closing date of June 17. While the PDP presidential candidate, former vice president Atiku Abubakar picked his running mate in a relatively straightforward manner, opting to select Governor Ifeanyi Okowa of Delta State, the other two parties had a more cumbersome task with the process.

While the APC and Labour Party made up their minds about who to select, their presidential candidates, former Lagos State governor Asiwaju Bola Tinubu and former Anambra State governor Peter Obi, selected holding persons for the roles. They named Kabiru Masari and Doyin Okupe respectively as their running mates until they were replaced with Senator Kashim Shettima and Yusuf Baba-Ahmed.

Challenging this move, the PDP gad filed a suit but today, it was struck out by Justice Donatus Okorowo of the federal high court in Abuja who held that the case lacked merit and was aimed at irritating opponents in the 2023 presidential election. Justice Okorowo specifically held that the suit was incompetent and unjustifiable as it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

In addition, the judge said that PDP failed woefully to disclose any injury it suffered in the substitution of running mates carried out by APC and Labour Party. In the suit, the PDP claimed that the Electoral Act 2022 did not make provision for a place holder or temporary running mate.

Also, the PDP contended that Asiwaju Tinubu and Governor Obi can only qualify to contest the 2023 presidential election with Messrs Masari and Okupe as their respective running mates. However, the judge held that the issue of nomination and substitution are internal affairs of parties and that courts have no jurisdiction to dabble into them.